Showing papers on "Expansionism published in 1972"

Sun Yat-sen and the Japanese: 1914–16

Abstract: The First World War changed the pattern of international relations in East Asia. What had previously been another arena for the European power struggle became the cockpit for two regional forces, Japanese expansionism and incipient Chinese nationalism. The confrontation between the two, which was to last for a quarter of a century, began as a most unequal contest. Great power rivalry had enabled China to balance off her enemies and to maintain her status as a sovereign entity. But with Europe distracted, China was helpless, and Japan had a unique opportunity to pursue an independent expansionist policy. Instead of cooperating with England and the other powers in order to get a fair share of the China spoils, after 1914 Japan could make her bid for the grand prize, exclusive access to China's resources. Thus the European powers’ pre-occupation with mutual slaughter exposed China to extreme danger, greater than that which she had faced during the heyday of classical imperialism.1 But Japan was not alone in welcoming the European retreat. Japan’s opportunity was also Sun Yat-sen's opportunity.

The Coming of the Cold War

Abstract: When may the Cold War be said to have actually begun? Manifestly the challenge was present from the moment that the Soviet Union became an active belligerent and Stalin disclosed to Anthony Eden in Moscow in December 1941 the territorial claims which Russia was determined to make upon a post-war Europe. ✳ Mr Eden’s astute handling of the situation prevented an immediate endorsement of Stalin’s demands. However, in the course of the period of Western appeasement of the Soviet Government, which began at Tehran, reached its apogee at Yalta and its reaffirmation at Potsdam, the fact remains that Stalin obtained by one means or another all that he had gained from his nefarious pact with Hitler in 1939 and a good deal more. Moreover, by the time the victorious Allies met at Potsdam, it was apparent that Stalin’s ambitions in Europe and in Asia even surpassed the paranoiac schemings of the most extreme fanatics of the Tsarist school of expansionism. For what was alarming about this new menace from the East was that it germinated from an unholy mating of Marxist ideology with Tsarist imperialism and Pan-Slavism, a truly fearsome amalgam, with an inexorable drive for domination.

U.S. Expansionism: The Imperialist Urge in the 1890's by David Healy (review)

Abstract: the Quakers and other churchmen serving as Indian agents and superintendents. The army, he points out, was for the Peace Policy or reservation system; yet disagreements as to how reservations should be operated were at the heart of Pope's difficulties. In many ways, Pope was as impractical as the Easterners he condemned. Much is made of Pope's feelings that Indian training should be pastoral, yet it was in the winter following his retirement hat the range cattle industry was wiped out. Nor is it irrelevant hat no mention is made of the Dawes Act, the official application of acculturation, passed in the following year. It is Wendell Phillips, certainly not typical, who is alone mentioned in personal attacks on humanitarians. But such matters are the subject of debate upon which discussion of Indian policy following the Civil War will continue.

The Labor Party and Australian Imperialism in the Pacific, 1901-1919

Abstract: 'Imperialism,' said the Victorian Labor Party's Tocsin in January 1901, when condemning British expansionism in South Africa, 'is the creed of kings, queens and millionaires; therefore, workers, it cannot be yours.'1 In the following two decades, however, the Australian Labor Party reacted in a much less dogmatically ideological manner to Aus tralia's own brand of imperialism?expansionism in the Pacific. The first imperialistic policy confronting the party was the pro posal in 1901 that the new Commonwealth of Australia should become the colonial overlord of British New Guinea. There was suspicion in the labour press about the wisdom of supporting this project. The Tocsin feared that it was designed to benefit only 'a few Fatmen', while both the Sydney and the Brisbane Worker spoke of a possible future threat of black New Gui?ean labour sullying the purity of white Australia.2 This threat was also mentioned by Charles McDonald, one of the three Labor members of Parliament who opposed the policy.3 The leader of the Parliamentary Party, John Christian Watson, expounded a prag matically isolationist opposition:

The Middle East Case

Abstract: Basically, there are two contradictory views of the belligerents in the many-faceted contest in the Middle East: On the Arab side, there is the prescriptive right to a land inhabited for more than a thousand years, the right of self-determination, the shock to the dignity of a once great people, the fear of Israeli expansionism, the plight of one million refugees. On the Israeli side, there is the undissolved and indissoluble bond to the land which had been the cradle of the Jewish heritage, the urge of Jews barred from the nations of Europe to reconstruct a national life of their own in the land of their ancestors, their need for a refuge among brethren when all other havens were denied, and their internationally recognized right to a share of Palestine.1